Thread Bomber;876702 wrote:Who ever said that China, India or the various other countries ramping up industry and emitting more and more and only the US is?

To think that Man has no impact on the environment Is as ludicrous as creationism. The argument should be ant is, but how much is it being affected and what is the price for being wrong.

The problem with the conservative viewpoint is that it absolutely refutes that little old mankind can have any impact in the environment at all. I just cannot fathom the line of thinking that would support an opinion like that.

The real problem that the right has with warming is that our Government issues regulations on emmissions and the developing countries do not, This creates yet another advantage that we do not enjoy.

And to all of you righties that are worried about our children and grand children having to pay off our debt, You ought to be thinking that they need some air to breath and some dry land to live on,

You lefties need to find some balance between protecting some little effin snail darter and Horned owls and having Heat and electricity to run your ****ty little cars on

Got a link on what I bolded? If you don't, you're just as full of shit as you claim conservatives are with regard to the environment.

On what I underlined: there is a huge, huge difference between believing in man-made global warming (totally unproven, despite all the billions in research so far) and KNOWING that man can harm the environment, and has.

I don't know one conservative who doesn't believe in being good stewards of the environment, and protecting our air, earth and water -- especially -- for future generations.

And just because the most critical issue of RIGHT NOW is us edging closer to a financial cliff that could cause irreparable harm to us and future generations -- does not mean the environment isn't also an important issue.

Humans are capable of focusing on more than one issue at a time, despite how you phrased it. This isn't an either/or situation...just a matter of triage at this point.

Indeed, anthropogenic effects are real but carbon is such a small portion of the natural cycle, and let’s not forget both the sun and carbon are needed for natural cycles that are good for the earth such as photosynthesis—the process by which plants turn sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into carbohydrates

Damn.... All of those carbon emmisions might actully HELP US GROW FOOD!

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/27/man%E2%80%99s-contribution-to-global-warming/

Writerbuckeye;877425 wrote:there is a huge, huge difference between believing in man-made global warming (totally unproven, despite all the billions in research so far) and KNOWING that man can harm the environment, and has.

If there were no evidence for global warming then there would be no scientific theory of global warming. To say that there is no proof entirely misses the point of how a theory comes into being. Perhaps the level of evidence does not reach a thresh hold that you find acceptable but there is certainly evidence out there. Unless you mean something else by 'proof'.

It is not proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Not even close.

Too many instances of research that was out and out changed, hidden or otherwise changed. When you have to do that, credibility goes damn near to zero, in my view -- as it should in anyone who believes in the true scientific method.

If you've got an unshakeable and unquestionable, bulletproof theory then why would you need to leave out information, change graphs or lie? Also, why wouldn't funding be given out 50-50 on something this important, instead of nearly 100 percent to projects that are trying to prove it is real, as opposed to proving the weather changes happening are cyclical or related to sun activity?

It is my view that AGW is one of the biggest frauds being perpetrated on mankind. There are some very powerful people making a very large amount of money off of this. If the US had signed off on Kyoto as the UN wanted, and followed through, our country would likely be bankrupt and our standard of living back to what it was in the early 1900s.

CERN is a somewhat large and respected group of nerds, and they seem to think that bright yellow disk in the sky might have something to do with it. Just sayin.

fish82;877875 wrote:CERN is a somewhat large and respected group of nerds, and they seem to think that bright yellow disk in the sky might have something to do with it. Just sayin.

What would they know. Al Gore says that prior to the American industrial age, seas were always calm, winds were negligible, the temerature was stationary at 72 degrees, skies were perpetually blue, the grass green, animals didn't eat other, and the term 'natural disasters' had not yet entered our lexicon, since none had ever occurred.

fish82;877875 wrote:CERN is a somewhat large and respected group of nerds, and they seem to think that bright yellow disk in the sky might have something to do with it. Just sayin.

This statement is disingenuous. CERN is composed of nearly 8,000 scientists and a few of them run the CLOUD project which seeks to understand the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation. The leader of CERN downplayed the results of the study and the leader of the cloud project Jasper Kirkby said this: At the moment it actually says nothing about the cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it is a very important first step."

Are the scientists at CERN who doubt man's role in global warming; sure and I don't dispute that...but you make it sound like the whole organization and all of its scientists doubt the idea when that is not true.



But it is not surprising that you latch onto whatever studies/reports happen to conform to your pre-conceived notion just as you do with media studies/reports.

BoatShoes;878645 wrote:This statement is disingenuous. CERN is composed of nearly 8,000 scientists and a few of them run the CLOUD project which seeks to understand the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation. The leader of CERN downplayed the results of the study and the leader of the cloud project Jasper Kirkby said this: At the moment it actually says nothing about the cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it is a very important first step."

Are the scientists at CERN who doubt man's role in global warming; sure and I don't dispute that...but you make it sound like the whole organization and all of its scientists doubt the idea when that is not true.

What part of "might have something to do with it" sailed over your pseudo-intellectual cranium? :rolleyes:

BoatShoes;878645 wrote:
But it is not surprising that you latch onto whatever studies/reports happen to conform to your pre-conceived notion just as you do with media studies/reports.

LOL...yeah. 'Cause you never do that, right? How about this...you get back to me when the 97 nerds can prove man's effect on the climate, instead of just think it. I'll wait.